Talk:Stem-cell therapy

Updates? Stem cell tooth replacement and others
It doesn't seem as if anyone is keeping this page abreast of new advancements made. For example, in the area of tooth replacement, I would have thought that something would have been included about the sheath and the chemical that was found to be necessary for this procedure to work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.48.150 (talk) 10:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh my God
Why isn't the passage "Some scientists see shift in stem cell hopes" deleted? Apparently, it's the view of one researcher! Add to this - a researcher previously unheard of. Are we going to cite every single individual on Gods gray earth from now on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.10.77 (talk) 08:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was moved to this talk page below on 26 Aug 2009. Rod57 (talk) 11:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Baldness/2007
The treatment for baldness discusses predictions that it may be treated by "as early as 2007", which doesn't fit at this time. I'm just leaving it in the open, could someone update this?


 * Ask Ken Washenik, MD, PhD. Washenik is medical director for Bosley. Or see what he has published since 2004. Larry R. Holmgren 15:16, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * International Congress of Hair Research, Vancouver, Canada; June 13-16, 2007. "Tissue Engineering of Hair Follicles", 6-14-07 scheduled presentation by Washenik. It sounds like he is still working on it.

Spinal cord treatment
The case of the Korean scientists was found to have been faked. MSNBC Article MoHaG 14:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Dear MoHaG, Let me just be quick: Wrong. The article that you cite refers to the most famous embryonic stem cell quack the world has ever known, Hwang Woo-Suk, a Korean scientist that exploited the over-blown hype of the embyronic stem cell research that Ron Reagan, Jr. and John Edwards created during the 2004 Presidential campaign.  The Korean scientists referred to in this Wikipedia article, that you incorrectly point to as a fraud, are a team of Korean scientists led by Hoon Han, who posseses an M.D. and a Ph.D.  You are confusing the wonderful work done by an adult stem cell researcher, Dr. Han, and the bogus, fraudulent work done by Dr. Woo-Suk, a quack embryonic stem cell researcher.  Please check your facts.  the MSNBC artice that you refer to clearly talks about Dr Woo-Suk, not Dr. Han.  Also, if you read the article that you cited, the MSNBC article, then you would have read: "The scientist had claimed in two papers published in the journal Science in 2004 and 2005 that he created the world’s first cloned human embryos and extracted stem cells from them."  It does NOT state in anyway that Dr. Woo-Suk was working on spinal cord therapy work, the work that Dr. Han engaged in and is the work referred to in the Wikipedia article that you incorrectly criticize. --70.114.205.215 20:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE NEEDED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.53.142 (talk) 02:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The story of the spinal cord treatment which helped a woman (Hwang Mi-soon) walk, while true, it's not up to date. More recent articles have said that the second operation was a failure and question the results from the first treatment. Links: 

Stem cell to gamete transformation
See this press release from Newcastle university. This happened in July but seems to have made not a ripple on Wikipedia.

This article needs some help!
References that don't go anywhere,! Links that are unimportant! Aggh! I guess I better get to working. Kopf1988 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article needs a lot of work.
 * I just did a partial revert on a comment that skin and bone marrow grafts are "stem cell treatments".
 * First, I'd point out that not all cell therapies are stem cell treatments.
 * Second, is that tissue grafting (allografts and autografts) is a long standing practice that I would be very reluctant to even call a cell therapy (they are tissue grafting or tissue therapies).
 * [Bone marrow transplant]s I guess could be called a stem cell treatment, although it is a very mixed population of stromal stem cells, haematopoietic stem cells, and other more differentiated cells. I'll leave it in and give BMT the most liberal interpretation in terms of being a stem cell treatment.
 * Dr Aaron 22:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Deafness section
I've noticed that the deafness section seems a tad bit small, couldn't something be taken from the reference and paraphrased into the section? 76.16.94.24 02:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(Redirected from Regenerative medicine)
I don't think Regenerative medicine is synonamus with Stem Cell therapy I think there are a wide veriety Regenerative medicines and therapies such as nanotechnologies in the future
 * I agree. Dr Aaron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
I just took a firm hand and edited the page - it was becoming a bit wooly & out of control. Amongst the changes: Anyway, that's my 2c for today. Dr Aaron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed a section on muscle stem cell therapy - it was on cardiac (heart) stem cell therapy & was completely unreferenced. I know of work on human stem cell therapy for muscular dystrophy that would go well in a muscle section, and if anyone wants to look into it before I get a chance, then go ahead.
 * I reordered everything to make it flow better - all the human therapies, animal therapies, controversy, then "updates". I actually think the updates stuff doesn't add much, but I thought I'd let people make comments before cutting these bits completely.
 * I cut back the sections of the controversy blurb that went into detail about US policy.
 * I did take a scrub cutter to the Stem cell therapies in China section. It seemed like an adverstisement for Chinese Biotech. Completely biased and inadequately referenced. I didn't cut the whole section as it is good to have non-US aspects to the page, though from a purely impartial standpoint I don't think it adds much to someone who wants to know about stem cell treatments. If there were some specific Chinese study results that were reported that would be something!

cleanup tag removal?
This article has been tagged the 10th of october, the reason is not present here. Incorrect facts? 50 or more revisions have been done since. If this article appears correct the cleanup tag can go. if this page is prone to innaccuracies and vandalism it should be a protected: stem cells is. if you are an expert on the subject, feel free to resolve this. cleanup tags are good but they just pile up as they are easy too use --Squidonius (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Research on the Chinese stem cell therapies
The Chinese therapy section here needed a lot of work. Beike is not the only company delivering therapy but I don't want to start a list inappropriately. At the same time, I'm interested to see how the Wikipedia community responds to sources outside of the western milieu. I'm researching the Chinese stem cell industry right now and, American standards of medical exploration aside, they're confidently delivering therapy to thousands of people here and now without fear. The top part of the article seems appropriate only through the lens of ethnocentric exclusion. Stem cell therapies are being delivered around the world--not just in China. It might be useful, and academically fascinating, to point out the dissonance between the eastern and western approaches to this science rather than simply deny therapy validity on western grounds of insufficient back-story--any FDA-approved process. The FDA's own historiographic vetting system is designed toward the anticipation of a short-term chemical rather than a long-term biological product.

It will be interesting to watch the development of this article. Like Columbus 'discovering' the new world and the native populations saying "Wait a sec," will the record resolve down to, as Eddie Izzard says, whether or not "you have a flag"?

Shoushan (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Category & research centers
Currently Regenerative medicine redirects here, and there is no obvious category Regenerative medicine to sit above both stem cells and Rejuvenation (aging). If there is no objection, I will create the category in a day or two.

Also organizattiosn such as New York Stem Cell Foundation‎ and McEwan Center for Regenerative Medicine do not have a clear category.

Any ideas? History2007 (talk) 03:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

references to follow up on
1. Stroke repair with cell transplantation: neuronal cells, neuroprogenitor cells, and stem cells Kondziolka D, Wechsler L. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E13.

2 Neural stem cells for the treatment of ischemic stroke Bacigaluppi M, et al. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 265 (2008) 73–77

3. Cell Transplantation Therapy for Stroke Bliss T, Guzman R, Daadi M; Steinberg G. Stroke. 2007; 38[2]: 817-826.

4. Intravenous administration of human umbilical cord blood reduces behavioral deficits after stroke in rats. Chen J, et al. Stroke. 2001; 32 (11):2682-8

5. Stroke-induced migration of human umbilical cord blood cells Newman M, et al. Stem Cells Dev. 2005 Oct;14(5):576-86.

6. Human umbilical cord blood cells do not improve sensorimotor or cognitive outcome following cerebral artery occlusion in rats. Mäkinen S, Kekarainen T, Nystedt J, et al.. Brain Res. 2006 Dec 6; 1123 (1):207-15.

7. Human cord blood CD34+ cells and behavioral recovery following focal cerebral ischemia. Nystedt J, Mäkinen S, et al. Acta Neurobiol Exp. 2006; 66 (4):293-300

8. In vivo tracking of human mesenchymal stem cells in experimental stroke. Kim D, et al. Cell Transplant. 2008; 16(10):1007-12.

9. Intravascular cell replacement therapy for stroke Guzman R, Choi R, Steinberg G et al. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E15.

10. Cell replacement therapy for intracerebral hemorrhage Andres R, Guzman R, et al Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24 (3-4):E16.

11. Growth factors, stem cells, and stroke Kalluri H, Dempsey R. Neurosurg Focus. 2008; 24(3-4):E14.

New intro paragraph
Hello! I've just edited/added to the intro paragraph for this article. Please leave your feedback!RoodleDoodle (talk) 04:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing Negative?
In reading this, I saw nothing about the negative side effects of treatment. There are multiple cases of uncontrolled tumors, deadly rejections, and other potentially deadly side effects. Is it that they have not been added, or have they been removed when included? I find it hard to believe it should be so one sided. Mushrom (talk) 21:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom - I agree that its pretty one sided. I think it would be great if you added a section describing the "potential adverse outcomes" or something similar! --Abbaroodle (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Orthopedic section
This section contains a link to a private, commercial website. ("First Commercial Adult Stem Cell Application in the US." http://www.regenexx.com.) Furthermore, the treatment they are discussing is currently neither approved by the FDA nor in an FDA-approved trial. There have been a couple articles written about single individuals who seem to have benefitted from treatment, but there have no trials with more than one patient that have been published, not to mention there are no placebo controls in the studies. While perhaps someday stem cells will be used for orthopedic conditions, for now I think we need to make it very, very clear that this use is still in the early experimental stage. --Abbaroodle (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there has been no reply to this in the past week, I am going to assume it is not controversial and went ahead and corrected the section. --Abbaroodle (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Disagree with abbaroodle.

The FDA has no regulatory authority over the practcice of medicine, this is an easdier to understand discussion of those issues:

"This can be very confusing to understand, so an example from day to day life should help. We’d all accept at face value that a restaurant is not FDA regulated. Why? The public health risk of bad food served in a restaurant is a one on one risk. At worst, a restaurant with a bad kitchen might make tens to hundreds of people ill. This is similar to a doctor’s office or a hospital delivering bad medical care, which also have the theoretical risk of making tens to hundreds of people ill. For this reason, both the restaurant and the medical office/hospital are regulated at the state level (the state health board for the restaurant and the state medical board for the doctor). Now let’s say our restaurant has a popular menu item that it wants to place in jars and ship across state lines to customers placing orders. All of a sudden the public health risk goes up dramatically. The food in jars has the potential to make huge numbers of people ill with just one bad production batch. Since we no longer have a restaurant and now have a food production facility, the FDA now regulates this facility, as the public health risk is a federal issue. The same holds true if our doctor’s office decides to place stem cells in a vial and ship those to other doctors in other states, now the public health risk is much larger and involves potentially all 50 states. There is no doubt that we would all want the FDA to have regulatory authority over stem cells shipped in a vial. What would happen if we had FDA regulate restaurants? Since every kitchen would need a cGMP kitchen (meaning up to the standards of mass food production) the cost of eating out would become prohibitively expensive. A ten thousand dollar prime rib anyone? What would happen if FDA regulated your doctor? The cost of delivering medical care would explode as every time your doctor wanted to treat you, that treatment would have to undergo 7-10 year FDA approval. Since the vast majority of what doctors do day to day could never pass this muster, medical care around the country would effectively stop. Just as there is no public health rationale for having FDA regulate restaurants, there is also no public health reason for FDA to regulate the activities of medical offices or hospitals."

On the case report side, at this juncture, since there is limited human data on stem cell therapy case reports are valid (albiet taken with an appropriate grain of salt). This same group just published the world's largest safety study on stem cell therapy, easily exceeding the requirements for phase I/II clinical trials by more than 100 patients, so this needs to be referenced as it's important scientific work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.42.238.245 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Section needing major revision if ever being reinserted
I moved the boxed section below to here, because I don't think it's very helpful to the reader as it is written now. Rather, I fear it will become an ever growing target to dump any random trivia or rumor that has anything to do with stem cells. Rather, any new information is probably better sorted into their proper places in the rest of the article. Does anybody want to save it somehow by a major revision? Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

{|class="wikitable"

Some scientists see shift in stem cell hopes
It was reported in the New York Times (14 August 2006), by Nicholas Wade, that some scientists see a shift in stem cell hopes. Several mentioned that the main role of stem cells was in research. Many no longer see cell therapy as the first goal of the research, parting company with those whose near-term expectations for cell therapy remain high.

Thomas M. Jessell, a neurobiologist at Columbia University said "Many of us feel that for the next few years the most rational way forward is not to push stem cell therapies."

In America, Barrack Obama has lifted the federal funding ban on stem cell research.
 * }
 * Better IMO to leave it here than put back into main article.

-Rod57 (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Stem cells make break though in vision repair
I found this video online (and subsequentually elsewhere): http://gizmodo.com/5277456/stem-cell-contact-lenses-cure-blindness-in-less-than-a-month

An article from "The Australian", by Leigh Dayton, Science writer, May 28, 2009 "Stem cells used to restore sight for corneal disease sufferers" names some of the involved people and institutions who were responsible for the breakthrough.

Beginning 18 months ago, 3 Australian volunteers with near or total blindness from corneal disease in one eye underwent an uncomplicated, fairly inexpensive proceedure that improved and eventually restored vision in a short time with no negative side effects reported that I can find.

The team leader is University of New South Wales stem cell scientist Nick Di Girolamo. A team member is Stephanie Watson - an opthalmic surgeon with Sydney's Prince of Wales Hospital.

America is still working with mice and proposing theories. That's all good, but behind several less well financed nations in this research. The World has millions who could be seeing well before a dozen years go by. --Jopower (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

---

"Blindness and vision impairment" of main article does not reflect the above (or other) research and success. The recent results from Australia, China, et al, should be here. Unfortunately, I am not privy to the authoratative reports necessary for Wiki reference. Someone in such a position please provide! Thank you. Jopower (talk) 09:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam links
Is there a way to block certain external links? It seems like certain websites reappear with regular frequency after being deleted as "spam" and non-neutral, unreliable sites. --Abbaroodle (talk) 13:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For the spam links, if the same ones appear with regularity you can try reporting the problem to WikiProject Spam at their noticeboard. If there is nothing of any possible use on the site and the issue is continuing, you could ask for it to be blacklisted.  Them From  Space  21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

“In stem cell therapy, cells are taken out and used when required. The same cells are energized without removing it from the body in zero therapy, thus harmonizing the mind, body and soul.” said Vipin Chand —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepjjj (talk • contribs) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Zero Therapy is the science of harmony of changing the individual cells of each family member and there by the side-effect takes care of the disease with food as a catalyst. Its food biochemistry and thought chemistry, which are complementary to each other. This is Ultimate Therapy, not Alternative Therapy. It works on the principle of balancing individual hormone, which varies from person to person. Ultimate Therapy is the name given to it, since no external material goes into the body. We don't prescribe food for organ. It is for individual body  says Vipin Chand Bomb, www.zerotherapy.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandeepjjj (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just got to remove them manually. If the same person or same links keep appears, you can ask an administrator for more help.

Veterinary Applications
This section received a major update as part of Saint Louis University School and university projects. We are all newbies in this class, so a review by a more experienced editor is welcome and appreciated.--Biolprof (talk) 02:07, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Regeneration therapy
Regeneration therapy, a content fork from this article, is being considered for deletion at AfD. Editors of this article may wish to comment or check that usable content from there is already covered in this article. --RexxS (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Autism
I was surprised to see nothing about the use of stem cell therapy as a treatment for autism. Such a trial was, in fact, approved by the FDA just last year. Perhaps we should start a section on that. We could include this study, which suggests it might actually work. However, according to the Autism Science Foundation, it is a non-evidence based treatment. . Jinkinson (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Ernie Lively's retrograde gene therapy
Hello! Apparently, actor Ernie Lively underwent "the very first successful retrograde heart procedure" as part of the stem cell therapy. My field is not medicine, but I thought it could perhaps be added somewhere in the article, since "he became the first person treated with an experimental retrograde gene therapy"... --Sofffie7 (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Will Government have to approve of using stem cells to regenerate organs?
Major breakthroughs in stem cell research for tissue regeneration appear in the News almost daily now and this is very exciting. However, will it be slowed down by years of Government review and approval process? Or is this different than approving a drug where the FDA may take years or decades to approve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.107.150 (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110509035545/http://www.nature.com:80/news/2009/070709/full/news.2009.646.html to http://www.nature.com/news/2009/070709/full/news.2009.646.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

National MS Society and JAMA 'not good enough' ???
Just had a Neurodegeneration line removed "There have been preliminary studies related to [Multiple sclerosis|multiple sclerosis]." with comment "We need better source. (TW))".

I think that's a mis-fire since cite is National MS Society report and link to JAMA article. If that's not good enough, what is ?

But this raises a broader question -- what *is* 'good enough', particularly about medical research ? I interpret WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDRS/FAQ as it varies by context, which seems the normal and reasonable enough general principles of 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' plus 'medical topics require extra care in cites'. But I'm thinking that there really should be some further guidance or draft guides specific to handling research so am asking -- can someone can point to any such guidance ? Markbassett (talk) 14:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at WP:MEDREV and if you like, WP:Why MEDRS?. This is a classic case of a primary source followed by some hype, as discussed in MEDREV.   There are zillions of primary sources out there of varying quality (which doesn't always emerge right away) which is why we rely on reviews to sort them out for us. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, those are helpful adds / reminders, WP:MEDREV that journal articles are not so reliable, and  WP:Why MEDRS? that biological processes are too variable.  (And that jibes with personal experience of reported studies going back and forth.)  I'd also appreciate if any more guidance shows up for wiki application, on what is 'good enough' to report or describing the progression / wording for ongoing research.  Markbassett (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * well the research thing gets dicier. my take on that from a policy/guideline level, is that every one of them calls us to use secondary sources.  that is deep in the guts of WP.   On a more practical level, if you go look at pubmed for research on anything you will find zillions of primary sources.  if you go look for mainstream media or advocacy groups hyping any given paper, you will often find plenty of that too, especially in the last few years.   Review articles (secondary sources) are how scientists and clinicians talk to each other as they evaluate the basic literature and they lay out what research is looking promising (they often will not talk about dead ends because they are too busy trying to map out the way forward)  so in my view reviews are the best place to go, to learn what the relevant field is seeing as important, and that is what we should follow....  Way too often folks grab a primary source and accompanying media hype for some reason that is random and not aligned with our mission (it happened to catch their attention, or it is for some reason important to them in the RW).  but to really provide appropriate WEIGHT about what is "accepted knowlledge" in a given field, we need to listen to experts writing reviews....  I go on about this at some nauseating length on my userpage. Jytdog (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog - research "dicier" to handle I agree, ditto that dead ends are not visible. But I differ a bit in thinking this peer-reviewed journal is the best one can expect for research topics, "accepted knowledge" of norm for practitioners is much later than research and then it also becomes something no longer discussed.   And media presence I see as more indicative of viewed important and newsworthy by that outfit, there is no 'hype' until much later when it becomes a commercial product.   Plus, I see an advocacy group like American Cancer Society publicizing a particular approach would be another set of experts showing it as serious results with high importance to people having that condition.  Having it on the ACS website would definitely produces the effect of a lot more people see it than a technical journal.  Maybe the best policy for MEDRS here is 'avoid reporting research or handle carefully'  Markbassett (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * we are getting ~kind~ of off topic but because media hype is so very, very relevant to research in this topic in particular, i will keep replying here. WP:Why MEDRS? one of the more infamous examples, and it is from the stem cell field, namely....  Remember that scientist who published work showing that if you create stem cells if you just shake normal cells a certain way?  There was huge media hype around that. See these search results - "breakthrough", "major discovery", "game changer" blah blah blah.  And yep, people rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP.  (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out)  only to delete it later when the paper was retracted.  Or just google something like "holy grail" university research and you will quickly start gagging over the cliche.  Or on the very topic where you added content, a google search.   And I have to say that this is vile. Especially stuff like this that pulls out a few positive results and just flogs the living daylights out of them, using the lives of real people.  Mark, many, many proposed treatments show some promise in the early stages and then turn out not to work when they are tested in lots of people.    found that only about 10% of drugs that enter Phase I are ever approved.  Think about that.
 * Again as discussed in Why MEDRS? there are a lot of reasons for this.  Universities initiate the hype because they want the attention and glamour to spur donations and bolster their reputations to attract students, faculty, etc (increasingly the main job of deans and university presidents is money raising); companies do it to please current investors and attract more (the smaller the company and the more in need of investment, the greater the hype; this is something you find more from biotech than big pharma); the media participate because most of their revenue is eyeballs and people are interested in health and headlines like "medical breakthrough" are super eyeball-catching.  But it is all vile, cynical hype.   The more responsible ones at least make it clear somewhere down in the weeds of the pieces that there is very far to go and a lot of risk before anything becomes medically available to people - part of actual medical treatment.  But way down in the weeds, where most people don't go.
 * So yes, reviews of research - which are published all the time in important fields - are essential for sourcing content about research. Reviews are where we see what are really important trends and where actual landmarks are defined. Stuff that we as an encyclopedia care about.  We cannot rely on the media nor on primary sources for that.  They are swamps, full of quicksand pits. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * am listening to the radio and have just heard for about the fourth time today about this from the BBC. Of course if you google BBC skin stem cells you see they have been saying the same thing for a long, long time. Hype. Jytdog (talk) 05:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Jytdog - yah, you're right, all that seemed off-topic so why... ? The topic is the professional journal JAMA and the National non-profit of the relevant experts being said 'not good enough' when  there simply are no possible sources better than these. There is nothing about 'media' or 'marketing' here, it's a premier peer-reviewed journal and the main organization covering the condition.  I don't think you were trying to show why the existing guidances did not speak to this thread, maybe you just took the opportunity to digress for similar topics or something, please clarify.  The WP:MEDREV and WP:Why MEDRS seem only minutely having relevant bits.  For that matter, the context is saying what is being researched so WP:MEDRS does not seem to really apply.   I can understand your wish for wide sources, but that seems unusable as a guideline here as info for a specific disease research is narrow and discrete events, not broad information or a trend.   Might be an idea from what you're saying to add a section to this article of 'Stem Cell Therapy - Questionable Claims' to cover 'Stem Cell Dietary Supplements' or such, but that would also be off the topic about the JAMA and NMSS and some guideline saying 'what is good enough' for research topics.  Markbassett (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why are you so impatient? that is a a real question.  I say that because if this really matters in the field, there will be a review one day discussing it.   Jytdog (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog Offtopic.  The topic is JAMA as reviewed by NMSS and 'not good enough' seemed fairly ridiculous there, but caused me to ask where is 'what is good enough sources' for research topics seen in guidance.  Got anything more that speaks to that ???  Want to say that there isn't any more for that ???   I am simply not looking for diversions into potential wished criteria like 'what is mature enough' or other areas of MEDRS, this is for 'what is good enough sources' guidance.  Feel free to start a separate TALK thread on time-to-wait if  you're interested in pursuing that with me & etc, though you may want that at MEDRS rather than this article.    Markbassett (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No it is not offtopic. When you write "there simply are no possible sources better than these." you are talking about now.  But reviews in fields like MS are published frequently and if this is really an important study it will be picked up and discussed in a review soon, at which time it will be in a review and can come in happily.  Also, NMSS doesn't "review" anything; it is just spreading the word about the study having happened.  The "not good enough" thing is your construction; what Doc James said is that we need better sourcing.  And yes, high quality sourcing is important across WP.   For health content, there actually is such a thing as "high quality sources"; this is not like the video game world where what you have is a slew of low-quality sourcing with no intrinsic hierarchy among them.  "High quality sources" are actually definable in this arena, and we use them  consistently, for many reasons.
 * I have tried very hard to answer your question as extensively as I know how, and you are starting to personalize this, so if you really feel strongly that this content should be in this article now, based on this sourcing, we should use DR. We can take this to WT:MED, which is where questions about reliability of sources related to health are generally handled.  Shall we? Jytdog (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Jytdog - First, got to insert username if you're addressing someone or it may simply not get seen.  Second this TALK thread topic was stated along the lines of 'where are guidances saying what is 'good enough' sources for this research context'.  So if you actually have another guidance, please say it, and if you do not then it's OK.   If you want to say there is a examplar better source for research context, particularly of MS, please name it/them as just saying 'oh there are better' isn't doing anything.   Finally, if you want to go into 'how long to wait' - that's a decent enough different topic if you want to start another thread here or at WT:MED, so go for it.  It's just not the 'where is good enough indicated' that this thread is for.  Markbassett (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Lots of WP:MEDRS, including review articles, on stem cell transplantation for MS, and the review articles on MS generally usually contain a section on stem cell transplantation. JAMA and NMSS news stories are heavily reviewed in the process of editing, but if you don't like them, instead of deleting them, you can substitute the peer-reviewed articles that they usually cite. I think secondary sources like JAMA and NMSS are useful, because they usually summarize the peer-reviewed literature more accurately and clearly than most Wikipedia editors are capable of doing. Also, some of the best work in exposing fraudulent stemm cell therapy has been published not in peer-review journals, but in newspapers, TV news, and news sections of journals like Science. Here's a bibliography of MS that I created, most of which includes at least references to stem cell research. Be sure not to quote older studies without checking the latest research.

Stephen L. Hauser, Douglas S. Goodin 458. Multiple sclerosis and other demyelinating diseases Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine, 19th ed. 2015

Daniel S. Reich, Claudia F. Lucchinetti, Peter A. Calabresi Multiple sclerosis (Review) NEJM 11 Jan 2018

Alan J. Thompson, et al. Multiple sclerosis (Seminar) Lancet 22 Mar 2018

Joachim Burman, Robert J. Fox Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation for MS. Safer than previously thought. Neurology 30 May 2017

MP Sormani, et al. Autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in multiple sclerosis: a meta-analysis Neurology 30 May 2017

Jan Dörr Haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for multiple sclerosis: what next? Lancet 9 Jun 2016 online

Harold L. Atkins, et al., Mark S Freedman, PI Immunoablation and autologous haemopoietic stem-cell transplantation for aggressive multiple sclerosis: a multicentre single-group phase 2 trial Lancet 9 Jun 2016 online

--Nbauman (talk) 06:45, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104212952/http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2013AllTooth.pdf to http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2013AllTooth.pdf
 * Added tag to http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/23/health/stem-cell-research-breakthrough/index.htm
 * Added tag to http://www.bentham-direct.org/pages/content.php?CSCR/2010/00000005/00000001/0011CSCR.SGM
 * Added tag to http://lccn.loc.gov/2004212209

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

embryonic stem cells
Since stem cells have the ability to replace old and diseased cells, they can be used to treat many diseases. Although using human embryonic stem cells has moral or religious objections and many scientists prefer to use adult stem cells instead of embryonic stem cells, Embryonic stem cells have the ability to produce all types of cells in the body, but adult stem cells have the ability to form just specialized types of cells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadisu (talk • contribs) 00:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404110914/http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/linkout_vw.php?issn=1533-3159&vol=11&page=343 to http://www.painphysicianjournal.com/linkout_vw.php?issn=1533-3159&vol=11&page=343

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

unsourced places
These are all unsourced or unreliably sourced; moved here per WP:PRESERVE. Per WP:BRUDEN please don't restore without first finding reliable sources, checking the content against them, and citing them.


 * Mexico===

Stem-cell treatment is currently being practiced at a clinical level in Mexico. An International Health Department Permit (COFEPRIS) is required. Authorized centers are found in Mexicali, Tijuana, Guadalajara and Cancun. Currently undergoing the approval process is Los Cabos. This permit allows the use of stem cell.


 * Middle East

Since 2008 many universities, centers and doctors tried a diversity of methods; in Lebanon proliferation for stem cell therapy, in-vivo and in-vitro techniques were used, Thus this country is considered the launching place of the Regentime procedure. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281712114_Treatment_of_Long_Standing_Multiple_Sclerosis_with_Regentime_Stem_Cell_Technique The regenerative medicine also took place in Jordan and Egypt.


 * Ukraine

Today, Ukraine is permitted to perform clinical trials of stem-cell treatments (Order of the MH of Ukraine № 630 "About carrying out clinical trials of stem cells", 2008) for the treatment of these pathologies: pancreatic necrosis, cirrhosis, hepatitis, burn disease, diabetes, multiple sclerosis, critical lower limb ischemia. The first medical institution granted the right to conduct clinical trials became the "Institute of Cell Therapy"(Kiev).

-- 02:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Stem cell therapy - lead
I suggest adding this to lead section, "Some stem cells are harvested from adipose tissue. While the suctioned fat cells are permanently gone, after a few months overall body fat generally returned to the same level as before treatment. This is despite maintaining the previous diet and exercise regimen. While the fat returned somewhat to the treated area, most of the increased fat occurred in the abdominal area. Visceral fat - the fat surrounding the internal organs - increased, and this condition has been linked to life-shortening diseases such as diabetes, stroke, and heart attack.

--Juliet Sabine (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead summarizes the body, giving WEIGHT as WEIGHT is given in the body. This would be entirely UNUE. Please never add content to the lead that is not already in the body. I have done some re-ordering and there is now a section on sources for stem cell therapy where these refs could be used. Jytdog (talk) 23:18, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stem-cell therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * https://sites.google.com/view/radianthairtransplantclinicmum/home?authuser=0
 * https://www.radiantaesthetics.in/hair-transplant.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Profit-making clinics
Here's a good article about bad outcomes in unregulated, for-profit clincs, with links to peer-reviewed journals. There are many others, including a CBS 60 Minutes expose.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/miracle-cures-or-modern-quackery-stem-cell-clinics-multiply-with-heartbreaking-results-for-some-patients/2018/04/29/80cbcee8-26e1-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html Miracle cures or modern quackery? Stem cell clinics multiply, with heartbreaking results for some patients. by Laurie McGinley and William Wan Washington Post April 29, 2018 --Nbauman (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * And here's the FDA action:
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/09/health/fda-stem-cell-clinics.html
 * F.D.A. Moves to Stop Rogue Clinics From Using Unapproved Stem Cell Therapies
 * By Denise Grady and Sheila Kaplan
 * New York Times
 * May 9, 2018
 * The agency filed two complaints seeking permanent injunctions in federal court, one against U.S. Stem Cell Clinic L.L.C. of Sunrise, Fla.; its chief scientific officer, Kristin Comella; and its co-owner and managing officer, Theodore Gradel.
 * The second complaint was against the California Stem Cell Treatment Center, with locations in Rancho Mirage and Beverly Hills; the Cell Surgical Network Corporation of Rancho Mirage; and Dr. Elliot B. Lander and Dr. Mark Berman.
 * --Nbauman (talk) 01:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

adding negative side effect & fixing grammar
I will be adding a small negative section under the researcher paragraphs. "Nine Things to Know About Stem Cell Treatments". www.closerlookatstemcells.org. Retrieved 2018-10-30. "What are the Side Effects of a Stem Cell Transplant? | Dana-Farber Cancer Institute". Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. 2018-02-09. Retrieved 2018-10-30. "Researchers Question Safety, Value Of Untested Stem Cell Treatments". NPR.org. Retrieved 2018-10-30.Mcqueetj (talk) 11:36, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Many more treatments available in 2020
Can this Stem Cell therapy page be updated by appropriately qualified people. Presently I am working on a new manufacturing facility for a commercialized Stem Cell therapy for Crohn's disease. The page seems to be out-of-date.